Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutY5MR 995400022___________________________________________________________________________________________ Offices: Port Angeles, Washington; Winston & Eugene, Oregon; Rocklin, California Main Office: PO Box 1239, Winston, Oregon 97496 ~ Telephone: (360) 460-6451 email: brad@westechcompany.com WESTECH COMPANY Environmental Consulting ~ Site Permitting CRITICAL AREA STEWARDSHIP PLAN SNOW CREEK RANCH, LOT 23 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL # 995-40-0022 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON May 2023 G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. Trevor J. Shea, CWD Submitted to: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: WESTECH COMPANY Port Angeles, Washington 98362 CRITICAL AREA STEWARDSHIP PLAN SNOW CREEK RANCH, LOT 23 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL # 995-40-0022 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON May 2023 G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. Trevor J. Shea, CWD Copyright 2023 by G. Bradford Shea, Westech Company – All Rights Reserved Submitted to: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: WESTECH COMPANY Port Angeles, Washington 98362 WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.TOC/050923/mas i CONTENTS CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE NO. _______________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODS 7 2.1 Approach 7 2.2 Methods 7 3.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 3.1 Regulatory Setting 10 3.2 Existing Conditions 12 3.3 Project Impacts 16 3.4 Management Proposal 18 3.4.1 Goals 18 3.4.2 Objectives 19 3.4.2.1 Mitigating Erosion and Plant Disturbance During Construction 19 3.4.2.2 Mitigating the Impact of the Project on Existing Native Vegetation 20 3.4.2.3 Mitigation of Potential Stormwater Runoff and Erosion due to an Increase in Impervious Surface 20 3.4.2.4 Mitigate the Loss of Habitat and Improve the Riparian Buffer Habitat 21 3.4.2.5 Avoid the Use of Pesticides and Plant Nutrients on the Property 21 3.4.3 Planting Techniques and Protection of Buffer Functions and Values 21 3.4.4 Performance Standards 22 3.5 As-Built Report and Monitoring Plans 22 3.6 Contingency Plan 25 4.0 PLANTING PLAN 26 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 32 5.1 Conclusions 32 5.2 Recommendations 32 6.0 REFERENCES 34 WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.TOC/050923/mas ii CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE NO. ________________________________________________________________________ TABLES Table 1 List of Plant Species: On-Site 14 Table 2 Performance Standards for Monitoring Plan 23 Table 3 Native Plant List for Planting Areas A, B and C 29 FIGURES Figure 1 Location Map 2 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 3 Figure 3 Parcel Map 4 Figure 4 Map of Critical Areas (Lot 23) 5 Figure 5 Site Plan 8 Figure 6 Soil Map 13 Figure 7 Proposed Planting Areas 28 APPENDICES Appendix A – Site Photographs A-1 WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Project Site is owned by JSB Land Development, LLC (Jennifer Jefferson) and is located on Lake View Drive within the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision north of Quilcene, Washington (Figures 1-4). The Project Site is located in Section 1 of Township 28 N, Range 2 West, within Jefferson County, Washington. The Assessor’s Parcel number is 995-40-0022 according to the County’s on-line database (Jefferson County 2022). The Parcel is 0.48 acres in size. The Site is currently an undeveloped lot, located near the western edge of Crocker Lake and Anders Creek. The Site lies roughly eight (8) miles north of Quilcene, Washington. Elevation is approximately 208 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Site is relatively flat and appears to have been recently graded. East of the Site, the northern shoreline of Crocker Lake contains a channel which flows northward into Anders Creek, which then flows into Snow Creek which in turn flows into Discovery Bay. The Site is part of the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision which is surrounded by a mixture of single-family residences and undeveloped lots (Figures 3 & 4). The proposed project is to build a single-family residence and a septic system on the Site. In the future, the Site development will also include a septic system for a nearby lot also owned by JSB Land Development (combined lot 7&8). The planned house-site is in the north-eastern boundary of the Parcel and the septic system drain-field area will be in the south and west. The other (future) septic system for combined Lots 7 & 8 will also lie on the southwestern portion of the Site. Electricity will be installed from the northwest corner of the property. Snow Creek Ranch has an existing water system which will be hooked up to the property along Lake View Drive. Other utilities (telephone, internet, etc.) will likely also use this route. The owner will be completing the cul-de-sac construction in coordination with other property owners (including Lot 24). No Critical Areas were found on the Property, however a Category III Lake-Fringe wetland which transitions to a riverine wetland, lies along the northern portion of Crocker Lake and the Project Site lies partially within the buffer zone for those wetlands. Part of the Site also lies within the 150-foot stream buffer for Anders Creek. Development of the new residence, water connection, drainfields, electrical and other utilities will lie in part within the buffer zones of the nearby wetland and stream. The Septic drainfields will be located outside of the stream buffer, but within the outer 25% of the wetland buffer zone. Work on the Cul-de-sac at the northern end of Lake View Drive will also be within the buffers. Buffer reduction, as outlined in this CASP and consequent mitigation will be required for the house and for the septic tanks and drainfields within the wetland buffer. Figure 1. Location Map Westech Company 2023 Source: Google Earth 2022 Figure 2. Vicinity Map Westech Company 2023 Source: Google Earth 2022 Figure 3. Parcel Map Westech Company 2023 Source: Jefferson County 2022 Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2023 Figure 4: Map of Critical Areas (Lot 23)An d r ew s Cree k Andre w s Cre e k 101Mountain V iew DrFuller R dUS H i ghway101Mountain View Dr Fo o thill D r Fu l l e r R d Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Kitsap, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend Andrew's Creek Property Boundary Wetland B 225' Wetland Buffer Stream Buffer 0 160 32080 US Feet WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 6 Since proposed house and part of the proposed septic system is planned to be inside the required wetland, and/or stream buffer zones, and since construction will disturb soils and some existing vegetation, the Property owner has contracted with Westech Company (Westech) to satisfy the County’s requirements for Critical Areas. This Report constitutes a Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) which will describe existing conditions on the Site, define the impacts of development, and outline a management proposal to maintain and enhance the existing functions and values of the buffer zones. This document is intended to satisfy the requirements of pertinent Jefferson County ordinances and regulations. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 7 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODS 2.1 APPROACH The approach for this investigation into the impacts of development of this Site included a detailed review of County Assessor's parcel maps, Critical Area Maps, and aerial photographs of the Site. It also included review of mapped locations of Habitat of Concern by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, mapped locations of critical habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by NOAA NMFS, USFWS, WDFW and topographic maps of the area. A Site Plan prepared by Creative Design Solutions (CDS 2022) was also reviewed (Figure 5). Field surveys were carried out by Mr. Trevor Shea, in consultation with Dr. Bradford Shea during April 2022. These surveys included identification of plants, wetland habitats, soils and hydrology. Additional field surveys near the proposed home-site, and an adjacent and two other nearby parcels were carried out during April 2022. Those included another CASP which is being prepared on an adjacent parcel (Lot 24, APN# 995-40-2023) and Parcels 7&8 (APN # 995-40-0007 and 995-40-0008). The County also carried out a pre- application site visit during July 2022. Dr. Shea reviewed site conditions and proposed planting areas, as well as photographic and other site documentation. A Department of Natural Resources (DNR) listed stream (Anders Creek) runs through the adjacent parcel (Lot 24, APN# 995-40-0023). That type of stream (Type F, fish-bearing) requires a 150-foot setback for structures, which includes part of the Project Site on Lot 23. Portions of the proposed septic systems on Lot 23 (this includes drainfields for Lots 7 and 8) also lie within the wetland buffer. A check of the Category III lake-fringe and riverine wetlands on Crocker Lake, near the head of Anders Creek, indicates that that buffer also affects parts of Lot 23. 2.2 METHODS Westech Company’s field studies involved examining the existing conditions found at the Site. This included reviewing the area proposed for development in relation to the natural features found on-site. Botanical studies were conducted involving identification of plant species that could be found growing at the Site. Site measurements were taken using a fiberglass tape measure. A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared and submitted during May 2022 by Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC (Westech 2022a) for wetlands on Lots 7, 8 and 23. The lake-fringe wetland was found to be a Category III Wetland with a relatively high habitat score (8), requiring a 225 foot standard wetland buffer according to the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code. Figure 5. Site Plan Westech Company 2023 Source: CDS 2022 WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 9 A qualitative assessment of the landscape was conducted to determine the presence of invasive species, the composition and characteristics of forests in the nearby critical areas, evidence of historical land uses, the slope of lands adjacent to critical areas, soil textures and stability and an assessment of the role of existing vegetation in supporting soil stability. Westech also assessed the extent of existing human disturbance in the critical areas. This information was used to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project. This Critical Areas Stewardship Plan (CASP) has been formulated to “maintain and enhance the existing functions and values of the associated watershed” (JCC 18.22.965). A Management Plan has been developed to describe the goals and objectives of the CASP as well as the performance standards that will be utilized to assess the effectiveness of the plan. This plan is intended to restore and enhance the integrity of the Site within the stream and wetland buffer zones, by improving the quality of habitat through erosion control and the planting of additional native vegetation at the Site. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 10 3.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.1 REGULATORY SETTING There are several jurisdictional issues and constraints related to the development of this parcel of land. The Property is shown on Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps as being partly within the 150-foot buffer zone for Anders Creek and partly within the 225- foot standard buffer zone for the Category III lake-fringe and lacustrine wetlands of Crocker Lake. Anders Creek is a mapped Type F (fish-bearing) stream running on the eastern edge of Lot 24, which is adjacent to the Project Site (Lot 23). This designation was given because similar streams are considered “critical habitat” for threatened salmonid (salmon) species. Anders Creek flows into Snow Creek, a known fish-bearing stream and thence into the marine waters of Discovery Bay. Salmonid populations are well known and documented in Snow Creek. Since Anders Creek does not appear to have any flow obstructions, salmonids can be presumed to inhabit Anders Creek and hence Crocker Lake. Jefferson County requires a buffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) for Type F Streams in which “federally listed species have a primary association.” In addition, a five-foot building setback from the buffer is required. Local and site-specific factors may be taken into account and the buffer width is to be “based on the best available information concerning the species/habitat in question” (JCC 18.22.630(2)). Any project located within this buffer must follow Jefferson County drainage and erosion control, grading and vegetation retention standards (JCC 18.22.630). Reduction of the buffer is possible following preparation of an acceptable Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for buffer reductions up to 25 percent, or a Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) for buffer reductions greater than 25 percent. Landowners may obtain a reduction in the size of the buffer required for F-type streams. The administrator has the “authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by-case basis” provided that standards are met for avoiding and minimizing impacts and that the buffer reduction does not “adversely affect the habitat functions and values of any adjacent FWHCA or other critical area” (JCC 18.22.640). However, the administrator “may not reduce the buffer to less than 75 percent of the standard buffer, unless it can be demonstrated through a special report prepared by a qualified professional that there will be no net loss of stream functions or values” (JCC 18.22.640). A Habitat Management Plan may be required if “if the field evaluation determines that any portion of the proposed project occurs within a regulated stream or buffer, which includes those areas that may be temporarily affected by construction-related activities or would be within the limits of clearing for construction. This type of report shall be used if a proposed buffer reduction or buffer averaging does not exceed 25 percent of WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 11 the standard buffer width, as shown in Figure 4. The HMP must identify “how the development impacts of the proposed project will be mitigated” (JCC 18.22.650). However, the development of an HMP is not available for projects that take place within the reduced buffer. This applies to the project proposed for this Site (See Section 3.2). In such cases, property owners “may elect to develop site-specific Critical Areas Stewardship Plans (CASPs) as an alternative to the prescriptive requirements” for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) (JCC 18.22.650) or stream buffers. CASPs can be applied only to residential developments on properties of 0.25 acre or greater (JCC 18.22.965). This CASP report contains the provisions of both a CASP for wetland buffer reduction and an HMP for stream buffer reduction. The CASP must meet several requirements specified in the Jefferson County Code. The CASP must “provide equal or greater protection of critical areas functions and values than the prescriptive standards of buffers and setbacks” (JCC 18.22.965). Among the elements that must be included in a CASP are: • A detailed description of the existing conditions of the Site to include habitats of local importance and other critical areas, a description of the property and adjacent watershed, a qualitative assessment of any surface waters on-site and the existing physical and biotic landscape, and a description of existing human impacts on the Site. The CASP must also describe potential adverse impacts of the proposed project (JCC 18.22.965). • A description of the management proposal that describes the overall goals and objectives of the CASP. These must address how the proposed buffer improvements will protect crucial functions and values from being degraded; a description of how surface grading will be conducted so as to implement the goals of the plan; a plan for the maintenance of existing vegetation and/or re-vegetation of the site; a proposed/approved stormwater management plan; and a description of the timing of the proposed plan (JCC 18.22.965). • A description of performance standards for the plan and protocols for monitoring and assuring the long-term function of its elements. These are to include the designation of performance indicators and their attributes, actions and quantities/statuses that will be used to assess the effectiveness of the plan. In addition, it must include a time frame for implementing the plan and a plan for periodic monitoring and reporting on the progress of the CASP (JCC 18.22.965). • A contingency plan describing planned steps to modify the CASP in the event that monitoring indicates a failure to meet its stated goals (JCC 18.22.965). The CASP must also include maps that support its descriptive elements. A failure to submit reports required under the Jefferson County Code will be considered a failure to comply with the terms of the permit (JCC 18.22.965). WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 12 This Report is intended to satisfy Jefferson County’s requirements that a Critical Area Stewardship Plan be prepared and submitted prior to development of the parcel. This CASP document is intended to support permit applications that the landowner has already submitted or intends to submit to Jefferson County. The information provided herein and adherence to the outlined mitigation and restoration measures is expected to show compliance with the Article IX of the Jefferson County Code (JCC 18.22.965 et seq) addressing the requirements for CASPs. 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Site consists of one undeveloped lot, approximately 0.48 acres in size. The Site lies at the north end of Lake View Drive, within the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision, connecting with U.S. Highway 101 by East Snow Creek Ranch Road. The Site lies at an elevation of approximately 208 feet above mean sea level (msl) and is located approximately 8.0 miles north of Quilcene, Washington. It lies west of the shoreline of Crocker Lake, and west of Anders Creek. The Site is surrounded by a mixture of single-family residences and undeveloped lots which constitute the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision. The Site lies on a level terrace, at 206-208 feet in elevation. Land adjacent to the east slopes a few feet down to the Crocker Lake shoreline and the channel of Anders Creek. Figure 6 shows on-site soils and topographic features within 3/10 miles of the Site. The property is fairly flat across the home site location with steeper hillside areas to the north and east of the Site. The Site is vegetated with grasses, non-native blackberries and weeds. Much of the Site has been recently graded, within the past two to three years. Septic testing has revealed that the Site soils will accommodate drainfield areas as designed by Creative Design Solutions (2022). The layout for these septic drainfields is shown in Figure 5. Easements allowing space for a drainfield from combined Lots 7&8 is also included on Lot 23 in addition to the proposed drainfield for Lot 23. The proposed building site will be near the Site’s northeast corner near the cul-de-sac for Lake View Drive. This area is within Critical Areas buffer zones for Anders Creek and the Category III Wetlands along the north portion of Crocker Lake. The distance from Anders Creek’s Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to the proposed house site is approximately over 85 feet and the house site is set back approximately 150 feet from the nearest wetlands. The entire property is vegetated with open field vegetation. This includes the proposed, cul-de-sac, driveway and proposed house-site. The dominant vegetation consists of mixed grasses, clover and various weeds (see Table 1). Figure 6. Soil Map Westech Company 2023 Source: NRCS 2022 WW1705-SnowCreekRanchCASPLot23.Tab1/050923/mas 14 TABLE 1. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES: ON-SITE Common Name Scientific Name Indicator * Upland Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis FAC Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea FAC Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata FACU Mullein Verbascum thapsus FACU Garden yellowrocket Barbarea vulgaris FAC Hairy bittercress Cardamine hirsuta FACU Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare FACU Red clover Trifolium pratense FACU *Indicators: UPL = Upland plant, FACU= Facultative Upland Plant (more upland than wetland), FAC = Facultative (borderline wetland plant), FACW = Facultative Wetland Plant (prefers wetland conditions), OBL = Obligate (only found in wetlands). WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 15 On-site species include bull thistle, hairy bittercress and garden yellow-rocket. Grasses are mainly rated FACU (mullein and orchard grass), with some FAC species (tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass). The clovers are FACU red clover. This is further documented in the Wetland Report for Lots 7,8 and 23 (Westech Environmental Consulting 2022). Table 1 shows scientific names for these species. No wetlands were found on the property. A check of WDFW’s Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database shows that there are no eagle nests (habitats of local concern) located within 3/10 miles (1,584 feet) of the Site. Should a nest(s) be found to be within that boundary, a Bald Eagle Management Plan would be required under WAC 232-12-292. WDFW’s PHS database also shows that the only potential species of concern within the 3/10-mile radius are several species of waterfowl and fish in Crocker Lake, Anders Creek and Snow Creek. As the Proposed Project will occur within the buffer zones, any potential Project impacts should be well mitigated to insure no impact to these species. Distances from Project components to the buffers are approximately: Residence – 80 feet from Anders Creek OHWM, 100 feet from nearest point in the off-site Category III Wetland Drainfields – 150 feet (closest point of approach) from Anders Creek OHWM, 140 feet from nearest point in Category III Wetland Cul-de-sac – 50 feet from Anders Creek, 50 feet from Category III Wetland. The drainfields on the western portion of the Site lie outside of the 150-foot Anders Creek Buffer. A small portion of the northwest corner of the Site lies outside of the Wetland Buffer. Buffer Reduction and required Mitigation Strategies will be necessary and are further addressed in Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 of this CASP document. The Site is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR-5), which has a maximum density of one dwelling per five acres with a minimum lot size of one acre. The purpose of rural residential zoning is to allow for “continued residential development” in areas of the County of “relatively high-density pre-existing patterns of development (JCC 18.15.015). Figure 5 shows the planned development (new residence and proposed septic system for Lot 23 (space is provided for a future drainfield on combined lot 7 & 8). The septic design is shown in Appendix B. A previously platted cul-de-sac will be completed by the Applicant and adjacent property owners. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 16 NRCS has mapped the Site as having one type of on-site soil, with several other types nearby. (NRCS) (see Figure 6). Because NRCS maps can be inaccurate at this scale, it is not always possible to determine the actual boundary between these soils or the specific soils among these that are found on-site. Therefore, this section will discuss the mapped on-site soil, as well as the nearby soil types. The mapped on-site soil includes: Belfast silt loam, heavy variant (Bh) is a moderately well-drained soil type associated with terraces and floodplains. It is derived from primarily from alluvium. It is a deep soil which has a depth of more than 80 inches to a restrictive layer and 24-48 inches to water table. The soil profile has a moderately high ability to transmit water (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr.). This soil has a high water storage capacity in its profile (about 12.0 inches) and has no frequency of ponding and “no to occasional” frequency of flooding. Several other soil types are found on adjacent and nearby properties. These include Quilcene silt loam 0-15 percent slopes (mainly to the north and east of the Site), Carlsborg gravelly loamy sand 0-15 percent slopes to the west, and McMurray and Mukilteo peats within the Crocker Lake wetlands to the south and southeast. These soils are all well drained, non-hydric soils except for the McMurray and Mukilteo peats. Because NRCS soil surveys do not necessarily capture small scale variation, Westech staff conducted additional field studies of the soils. To examine soils near the wetland boundary, Westech staff dug soil pits and observed soil characteristics. The soil information taken at these sample points is shown in the Wetland Delineation Report (Westech 2022). 3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS The development of this Property will consist of the grading and paving of the cul-de-sac well as the installation of a septic system and single-family residence. New septic systems will be constructed (and reserve areas will be designated as per Figure 5) west of the new residence to provide septic service for combined lot 7& (see Figure 5). The Site will be connected to the community water system and electric utilities will enter the Site from the northwest corner. The project involved the placement of a new residence and septic system on-site. The location of the septic system includes septic tanks near the home and drainfields as described above for Lot 23 and a combined Lot 7&8. Potential impacts of the project have been identified to include the following. 1) Increases in short-term erosion and soil instability caused by the construction process and the removal of some vegetation within the buffer zones of the Creek and wetland. The earth moving and grading during the construction process may contribute to increased erosion. Grading may WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 17 slightly alter the one to two percent slope found near the home-site, though this impact will be minimal. 2) The removal of some native and non-native vegetation in the buffer zone. These plants are mostly grasses, clovers and forbs, plus some other weedy species including bull thistle and an occasional non-native blackberry. Impacts are expected to be minimal, and these plants can be easily replaced. 3) The Project will result in an increase in the impervious surface on-site. The new residence will occupy an approximate 1,500 square foot footprint, plus an 8x28 foot porch. The new septic systems will be installed on the southwestern portion of the property, outside of the stream buffer, but partially within the wetland buffer. A septic line will connect the septic tanks near the residence with the drainfield. Other drainfield lines will connect with the associated Lots 7&8, along Lake View Drive. The paving of the cul-de-sac will also result in an increase in impervious surface. 4) Reduction in wetland and stream buffer size. The septic system will be installed within the wetland buffer as shown in Figures 4 and 5. These reduced buffers will be mitigated as per the Mitigation and Planting Plan described in Chapter 4.0. 5) Potential long-term increase in stormwater runoff and erosion due to the increased imperious surface and loss of native vegetation. The increased footprint of the new residence, septic systems, and construction of the cul-de-sac will increase the rate and quantity of runoff during stormwater events, potentially contributing to increased sedimentation and declining water quality. 6) Loss of habitat caused due to the loss of native vegetation during construction. Many species of bird, small mammal and insect use native plants found in open fields for food sources and shelter. The loss of this vegetation in the buffer zone could reduce habitat for these organisms. The Management Plan below is intended to offset these adverse impacts and improve the overall quality of this riparian area. The Mitigation Measures developed in this Plan are intended to compensate for the Project’s impacts to the riparian habitat and buffer zone. In addition, the buffer area will be enhanced through replacing native vegetation lost during construction, removing invasive plants in the buffer and planting natural vegetation within the stream and wetland buffers. This will result in the overall improvement of buffer zone quality and the connection between the buffers and remaining nearby habitat. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 18 3.4 MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL This section outlines the goals and objectives of the CASP’s Management Proposal, describes a planting plan for achieving these goals (see also Chapter 4.0) and defines the performance standards and monitoring protocols to be used to assess the success of Plan. Section 3.6 describes a Contingency Plan to be implemented in the event that Performance Standards are not met. The overall aim of the proposal is to “maintain and enhance the existing functions and values of the associated watershed” (JCC 18.22.660). The requirement to “maintain” existing functions is similar to the goal of “no net loss” of habitat function for other critical areas in the County (JCC 18.22.660). The requirement to “enhance” existing functions corresponds to the condition that the CASP “provide equal or greater protection of critical areas functions and values than the prescriptive standards of buffers and setbacks” (JCC 18.22.660). 3.4.1 Goals The goals of this management proposal are: 1. Mitigation of the immediate impacts of erosion during the construction process through the use of erosion control technologies. 2. Mitigation of impacts on native vegetation in the construction area. This will include the removal of invasive plants and replanting native plants removed during the project. 3. Mitigation of potential stormwater runoff and erosion due to the loss of native vegetation in the construction area and reduced buffer size. This will involve planting a mix of native vegetation in the area currently occupied by grass and in disturbed areas. 4. Mitigation of the loss of habitat caused by the removal of native vegetation and improve habitat in the buffer zone. This will involve a partial reconnection of the habitat to the riparian zone through a Planting Plan (in conjunction with plantings anticipated in a separate CASP for the adjacent Lot 24 near Ander’s Creek (see CASP report for that lot). 5. Minimize the impacts of nutrients and pollutants on the nearshore by the owners refraining from using pesticides or plant nutrients within 150 feet of the OHWM of Anders Creek, and/or within the wetland buffer. Buffer areas serve a variety of functions. They are important in that they reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses by stabilizing soil and preventing erosion; filter suspended solids, nutrients, and toxic substances; and moderate impacts of stormwater runoff. Mitigating adverse impacts and enhancing buffers involves action both during and WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 19 after the construction process. Actions during the process can involve the use of erosion control technologies while enhancement after construction is best accomplished by planting native vegetation. The size of reduced wetland and stream buffers may limit capacity to filter nutrients and pollutants from the water. However, by improving the native vegetation in the buffer, this capacity may be incrementally enhanced and potentially surpass existing conditions. In addition, an increase in native vegetation in the buffer will enhance the buffer’s contribution to erosion control and its role as habitat. As a transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial habitats, riparian buffers also provide important habitat for both animal and fish species. Buffer vegetation provides habitat for small mammals as well as many bird species. They also provide habitat for many insect species. 3.4.2. Objectives The goals of this plan will be met through the implementation of the following objectives. These objectives are intended to achieve the goals of impact mitigation and the overall enhancement of the buffer area. 3.4.2.1. Mitigating Erosion and Plant Disturbance During Construction. Because the potential exists for short term erosion during construction, this CASP specifies that erosion control technologies should be emplaced between the construction site and the buffer zone. These include the placement of silt fencing between the graded area and the off-site stream (Anders Creek), and nearby off-site wetland, as well as mulch and/or other protective matting between the construction site and buffer areas east and south of the Project. Erosion on-site should be continuously monitored during construction. In the event of any observed erosion, additional erosion control steps should be taken immediately. Additional erosion control materials should be kept on-site during construction (e.g., straw bales, etc.) to allow for a rapid response to any observed erosion. Silt fencing should also be used to define and minimize the area to be graded. The CASP also specifies that care should be taken during construction to avoid the disturbance of native plants found in the buffer zone not directly related to the placement of the home and septic systems. This should include the identification of plants for all construction personnel and clear instructions to avoid native plant disturbance. We recommend that current plants be compared to the plants identified in Chapter 4.0 and removal of any trees along the western property line be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio to be documented in the “As-Built” report. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 20 3.4.2.2. Mitigating the Impact of the Project on Existing Native Vegetation Steps should be taken to mitigate the impacts of the proposed project on native vegetation in the buffer zones. Native vegetation will be impacted near the areas where the new septic systems are being placed as well as the necessary access driveway and house-site. Invasive species to be completely removed from this area include any Himalayan blackberry located on the property. Trailing blackberry is a native species and should be preserved. Any Himalayan blackberry may be removed during construction. However, any not removed during construction should be removed as a mitigation measure. Second, if any trees along the western boundary are removed during construction, they should be replaced at a rate of two replanted for each tree removed. New trees should be of three-gallon size or larger. The third step involves replanting native vegetation in the areas immediately surrounding the new residence. Another area immediately to the north should also be replanted (Area A) as that area is within the stream and wetland buffers and is sparse enough to support new plantings (see Figure 7). The plants to be used in Planting Area A are listed in Table 3 (in Chapter 4.0). This planting plan builds on typical existing plants in this and nearby areas, including salal, evergreen huckleberry and sword fern. Plants will also be replanted in Areas B and C as shown in Figure 7 (see Chapter 4.0). These plants should be overplanted at 110 - 120 percent to ensure long-term success. More detail on planting methods is included below in Section 3.4.3. Intrusions into the buffer zones by the house and driveway areas will be mitigated by Planting Area A. The cul-de-sac will be partly the responsibility of the owner of Lot 23 and will be mitigated in Area B. The drainfield areas within the Wetland buffer will be mitigated by Areas B and C. 3.4.2.3. Mitigation of Potential Stormwater Runoff and Erosion Due to an Increase in Impervious Surface To mitigate the potential for increased stormwater runoff and erosion due to increased impervious surface and reduced buffer width, the setback area near the new residence within the stream should be planted with a mix of native vegetation. This area is shown as Planting Area A in Figure 7. An area should also be set aside for additional buffer restoration with native plants near the house-site to help compensate for the disturbance of the access (part of cul-de-sac) that will occur during construction. This Area is shown as Planting Area B in Figure 7. Planting Area C should be seeded with native grasses, in designated planting areas near and within the area of the drainfields. The plants to be used in this area are listed as C-1 and C-2 in Table 3. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 21 This objective will be met by planting these areas with a mix of native ground cover and shrubs. The mix of root depths will provide effective mitigation against erosion and surface runoff. This should contribute to protecting water quality in the nearshore area and avoiding excess sedimentation. These plants have been chosen for their ability to grow in open areas, as well as, for their varied root depths. 3.4.2.4. Mitigate the Loss of Habitat and Improve the Riparian Buffer Habitat In addition to providing protection against stormwater runoff and erosion, the plants in Planting Areas A and B have been chosen to improve the quality of habitat in the riparian and buffer zones. These plants provide habitat for a broad range of native bird, small mammal and insect species (See Section 3.4.3.2). The inclusion of a zone of plants to be north of the house-site (Area A) as well as one near the cul-de-sac (Area B) is intended to enhance corridors of the riparian habitat. They will also assist with controlling erosion issues after construction of the new residence. 3.4.2.5. Avoid the Use of Pesticides and Plant Nutrients on the Property While a replanted buffer area will improve habitat and provide additional support for buffer soils against erosion, its impact on the filtration of nutrients and pollutants will be limited. Research indicates that buffers of 100 feet provide good control of sediment flows and nutrients such as phosphorus and other pollutants (Wenger 1999). The capture of sediment flow is particularly important in riparian zones, as pollutants often adsorb to sediment particles. While some narrow buffers have been found to effectively filter nutrients such as nitrogen, most narrow buffers (3 to 45 feet) have been found to increase nutrient loads. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) reports that riparian buffers of 150 feet have been successful at removing nitrogen (Mayer et al. 2005). Because the reduced stream buffer is smaller than recommended widths for fully protecting water quality, the property owners should avoid using pesticides or plant nutrients within 40 feet of the Wetland Boundary and within 50 feet of the stream. Additional setbacks for pesticide use are recommended if feasible. 3.4.3. Planting Techniques and Protection of Buffer Functions and Values The following specific plan (see Chapter 4.0) should be followed to ensure the survival of native vegetation planted in the mitigation areas and the remainder of the buffer zone. This includes both a general planting plan (Section 3.4.3.1) and the use of specific plants to insure the protection of buffer functions and the enhancement of the buffer habitat for animal and fish species (Section 4.1). WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 22 3.4.4. Performance Standards This section discusses the performance standards that are to be used to assess the success of the Management Plan. Section 3.4.4.1 below discusses the specific performance standards while Section 3.4.4.2 outlines the specific “As-Built” Report and Monitoring Plans. Section 3.5 describes the Contingency Plan to be implemented in the event that monitoring indicates a failure in the performance standards. Table 2 lists the performance standards to be used in assessing the success of the overall management plan. Three indicators and related attributes will be used for determining the success of the planting plan in the buffer zone: • The percent cover of invasive plants removed from the planting zones. • The percent cover of the combined total of native plants remaining and re-planted in the planting zones. • The observation of erosion or sediment movement in the buffer zone. Specific target quantities of percent cover (“action” in JCC 18.22.965) will be used to determine when the contingency plan should be implemented. A target quantity of five percent cover or less is set for invasive plants. If invasive plant growth reaches ten percent, the Contingency Plan is to be triggered. For native plants, a target goal of at least 90 percent total area cover is targeted. In the first year following planting, ground cover of less than 90 percent will trigger the contingency plan. In the second year and subsequent years ground cover of less than 85 percent will trigger the Contingency Plan. The action levels for both invasive and native plants will be attained by the first summer following the termination of the proposed project. In addition to plant cover levels, the presence of visible rill or sheet erosion will be a third indicator. A target of zero observed erosion in both planting areas will be sought. Any visible erosion which cannot be mitigated immediately will trigger the contingency plan. This action level will be attained during the construction process through on-site mitigation measures and maintained following construction through the Planting Plan. 3.5 “AS-BUILT” REPORT AND MONITORING PLANS Because of the importance of buffer zones to the success of this Plan, monitoring over an extended period provides the best assurance of success. Westech recommends that the “As-Built Reports and Monitoring Plans outlined here be conducted by a qualified botanist/ecologist, working with an independent landscaping firm, certified arborist, or registered nursery. The following monitoring schedule will be followed: WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Tab2/050923/mas 23 TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MONITORING PLAN Standard Indicator # 1 Indicator # 2 Indicator # 3 Indicator Invasive species Remaining and planted native species Signs of erosion Attributes Percent cover Percent cover Any sign of erosions Actions Will not exceed 10 percent • 90 percent cover first year • 85 percent cover in subsequent years Will not be visible in buffer zone. Quantities/Status Less than 5 percent cover of buffer 85 percent cover of buffer No visible erosion in the buffer zone. Time Frame Achieved by first summer following construction project Achieved by first summer following construction project Achieved during construction and maintained thereafter. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 24 • Plants will be planted in the spring or fall to the extent possible (See Section 3.4.3.1 Planting Plan). An “As-Built” Inventory and Report will be prepared and submitted to Jefferson County to document successful completion of the planting as per the CASP Specifications. Performance Standards and targeted planting quantities will be reached by the end of the first summer following construction (Fall 2022). • Within one year of completion of the project (preferably at the end of the growing season), the Site should be monitored. The Contingency Plan (Section 3.5) should be activated in the instance that action levels for invasive plants, native plants or erosion are reached (see Table 2). A Monitoring Report (first year) addressing the success of the Management Plan or the need for implementation of the Contingency Plan should be produced and presented to Jefferson County. • Monitoring should be conducted at the end of the second year following the end of planting. The Contingency Plan should be activated in the instance that action levels for invasive plants, native plants or erosion are reached. A Monitoring Report (second year) addressing the success of the Management Plan or the need for implementation of the Contingency Plan should be produced and presented to Jefferson County. • Monitoring should then occur in each consecutive year for five (total) years after the initial planting. The second-year action levels should be used to assess the success of the Management Plan in each of the subsequent years. These levels should be used to assess the need to initiate the Contingency Plan. • To facilitate monitoring, four photo-stations should be used to provide a benchmark for tracking the planting action levels for Monitoring Reports. Two should be created in Planting Area A. Two photo-stations for Planting Area A could be created by choosing an identifiable staked location during construction or any specified location which can be defined and staked following construction. A photo-station for Planting Areas B & C should be created in each area. All reports should be submitted to Jefferson County for review and concurrence. Monitoring success of erosion control measures was to be carried out daily during construction, as well as, during the removal of invasive plants and the replanting period. Any observed erosion should result in immediate action to block it. This can best be accomplished by additional silt fences, mulch, straw bales or other protective covering. Sufficient mitigation supplies should be kept on-site to allow an immediate response in the event of observed erosion. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 25 3.6 CONTINGENCY PLAN Adaptive management should be introduced into the Management Plan through a Contingency Plan. A Contingency Plan should be implemented if the proposed measures in the Management Plan appear to be failing. Failure should be assessed by the quantitative indicators found in Section 3.4.4.1 and Table 2 on Performance Standards. In the event that invasive plants exceed the action level of 10 percent, steps should be taken to completely remove the invasive plants and to replant the area with the most proximate successful plant. In the event that the survival of native plants falls below action levels (90 percent in year one, 85 percent in subsequent years) the area should be replanted as per a Contingency Plan. If a specific species of plant appear to have failed, then the dying plant should be completely removed, and the area overplanted (120 percent) with the nearest existing successful plant. Proximate successful plants should be chosen because their success in an area may indicate that micro-habitat conditions are interacting to foster the success of that species. The Contingency Plan should also provide for immediate action in the face of any observed rill or sheet erosion in the buffer zone. This should include the employment of additional erosion control technologies, including silt fencing, mulch and straw matting. These materials should be kept on-site in the event that erosion is observed. In the event that this occurs, the professional responsible for conducting the monitoring plan should be immediately contacted and informed of the erosion. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 26 4.0 PLANTING PLAN Several ideas guide this planting plan. The first is the clustering of plants to mimic natural patterns and foster self-seeding. The second is the planting of multiple species in each area to maximize the creation of habitat for different species. This includes the use of both deciduous and evergreen plants in each zone. Third, plants have been selected that are found in riparian ecosystems in the Puget Sound area similar to that present on-site. And fourth, a mix of ground cover, and shrubs has been selected to maximize the web of roots that will contribute to erosion control. Shrubs will be placed in a semi-random fashion with shrubs on six-foot centers and ground cover interspersed in patches between shrubs on two to three foot centers. Trees (if necessary for replacement) should be placed on ten-foot centers. There are two exceptions to this general pattern. First, shrubs and ground cover should be overplanted at a level of 120 percent if feasible to help meet performance standards. Second, the planting plan should build on existing plant cover by locating planted species near existing plants of the same species. For instance, species should be adjacent to those locations where this species may already be found in or near the planting areas. This will build on any potential favorable micro-habitats and foster self-seeding. New plantings to be established in the buffer zone should be carried out during spring (March-May) or early fall if possible (September-October). Planting in the fall will avoid the necessity of immediate supplemental watering, however, the owner should provide a supplemental watering system for summer months (June – September) during the first 2-3 years while the plants establish effective root systems. Supplemental watering with a drip irrigation system, sprinklers or equivalent method may be used and should provide the equivalent of about one inch of rainfall during the summer period. Plants installed in the fall usually outperform those installed in the late winter or spring. Planting projects scheduled for early October to mid-December are generally the most successful. The earlier the plants go into the ground in the fall, the more time they have to recover from transplant shock, adapt to the site, and expand their root systems before the growing season. They will require less water and grow more vigorously than if they are planted in the spring. To increase the potential for the planted species to survive, four inches of mulch should be placed around the installed plants with the mulch at least two inches away from the stem of the plants. The Planting Areas should be completely re-vegetated to reach the target goals described in Section 4.1. To facilitate plant survival these areas should be over-planted at approximately 120 percent. Holes should be of appropriate size, generally two to three times the size of the container (filled with topsoil at least six inches of soil around the root ball). New plantings should be adequately watered immediately upon placement in the ground. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 27 The Planting Plan will consist of planting in three areas (Figure 7): • Planting Area A will include the area near the proposed residence within the wetland and stream buffer. This area is approximately 30 by 50 feet for a total of 1,500 square feet. This area was chosen for being within the buffer zone as well as having enough open space to support the new plantings. It is one of the few large areas left following site development. • Planting Area B will be located adjacent to the new residence to the south in an area within the construction zone near the cul-de-sac. This area is approximately a total area of 1,250 square feet and will mitigate for the portion of the cul-de-sac appropriate for this property. • Planting Area C will be located near and within the drain-field areas, between drain-line rows but outside of reserve areas. Plants will consist mainly of native grasses, with some Kinnikinnick. This will assist with erosion control for the disturbed drain- field areas. This area (C-1) is approximately 1,400 square feet for the primary drainfield for Lot 23. Another area (C-2 at 1,000 square feet) will be set aside for Combined Lot 7&8, but will not be planted until those lots are permitted in the future. Kinnikinnick shrubs have also been added to the plantings for area C to further stabilize soils. This will also mitigate buffer intrusion by the septic lines. The plants to be used in these areas are presented in Table 3. It is important in doing this to build on the patterns of habitat and existing vegetation (compare to existing plants near Anders Creek on the adjacent Lot 24). The areas on Lot 23 should be planted with shrub and ground cover species as listed in Table 3. It is difficult for native species to survive transplant shock. Success depends on choosing species that are not only suited to the site conditions, but are also hardy and adaptable, capable of handling nutrient poor soil, scarce water and shade, and competitive weeds. The shrubs selected for this part of the Management Plan were based on the amount of soil moisture and sunlight they prefer, although some plants which prefer shade may not be totally acclimated until other nearby plants become well established. Shade is particularly important for salal. Salal grows better in the shade, though it can tolerate exposure in sunny areas once it has established. It is therefore especially recommended to plant salal in late fall or winter months when significant shading is present from cloud cover. This will provide the plant time to establish roots. Westech also recommends that erosion control measures be used during the ground- disturbing activities. We recommend that silt fences, straw wattles, mulch or other protective covering be placed on the ground following the removal period and for the duration of the seeding period. Any work carried out during grading or removal of plants in any area. Prior to the rainy season, all erosion control measures should be in place. Figure 7. Planting Areas (*Area C-2 will be needed once combined with Lot 7&8 is permitted) Westech Company 2023 Source: CDS 2022 B C-2* WW1705.2-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Tab3/050923/mas 29 TABLE 3. NATIVE PLANTS FOR PLANTING AREAS A, B AND C Planting Area Species Scientific Name Number* Size A Common snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 10 1 gallon A Tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 10 1 gallon A Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 6 1 gallon A Salal Gaultheria shallon 6 1 gallon A Sword fern Polistichum munitium 8 1 gallon A Pacific wax myrtle Myrica californica 4 1 gallon B Tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 6 1 gallon B Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 6 1 gallon B Red flowering currant Ribes sanguineum 6 1 gallon B Sword fern Polistichum munitium 8 1 gallon B Native Grass Mixture Graminae 1-2 1 pound B Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 10 1 gallon C-1** Native Grass Mixture Graminae 3 1 pound C-1 Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 30 1 gallon C-2*** Native Grass Mixture Graminae 2 1 pound C-2 Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 20 1 gallon *Plants should be overplanted by 10-20 percent to ensure compliance with Performance Standards and to minimize the need to replant during the ensuing 5-year monitoring period. **C-1 is to mitigate the proposed septic drainfield for Lot 23. It will be completed at the time of the other initial plantings. ***C-2 is to mitigate proposed septic systems for Combined Lot 7&8, which is for a 2-bedroom home, to be constructed on Lot 23 following future permitting of Lots 7&8. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 30 Materials should be placed prior to beginning work and additional materials should be kept on site to be used in the event of any observed erosion. Protection of Buffer Functions and Values This planting plan has the goal of enhancing three main buffer functions: (1) mitigating runoff and erosion; (2) providing habitat and (3) enhancing the link between upslope and riparian habitat. The species, size, and number of plants that will be used to revegetate these areas is shown in Table 3. These plants were chosen for several reasons. First, these are plants commonly found in riparian areas in the Puget Sound association with forests of the composition found near the site. These plants will provide habitat for a range of species found in coastal Puget Sound areas (Brennan 2007). The combination of plants included here will also provide a network of root and rhizome systems what will bind soil across layers and limit surface erosions. Sword fern will provide a system of surface rhizomes adapted to these climates and soils. The moderate to deep roots of the shrubs will provide reinforcement for soils and bind soil particles at the surface. Salal has shallower but firmly attached roots. Placing these plants in Planting Area A will further add to the complexity of the root system across soil layers. The mix of shrubs and ground cover in Planting Area B will provide similar protection against soil erosion as well as surface water runoff. Using a variety of shrub species in this zone will also increase the habitat provided from birds, mammals and nearshore fish species, including salmonids (WNPS 2010) in the nearby stream and lake. Some examples of the expected improvement of riparian habitat by planting these species include (see Table 3 for other species): • Common snowberry is a low-growing shrub. Its berries are eaten by grosbeaks, waxwings, thrushes, robins, towhees, and pheasants. Its leaves are eaten by deer and some moth larvae, while bumble bees and hummingbirds feed on nectar from its flowers. Its leaves also provide low-to-the-ground refuge for small mammals. • Tall Oregon grape is a broadleaved evergreen shrub with holly-like leaves. It has clusters of yellow flowers and dark blue berries. Many bird species eat the berries, as do small mammals. The fruit is eaten by birds including pheasants, robins and juncos. Bees and butterflies extract the nectar. • Oceanspray: Insect-eating birds such as chickadees and bushtits forage in this shrub while its dense branches provide refuge habitat for many songbirds. Butterflies and other insects forage on the foliage. The dense structure also provides refuge for small mammals. Deer also eat the foliage. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 31 • Salal: Deer eat salal leaves while many species of ground-feeding birds such as pigeon and towhees feed on this plant’s berries. Butterfly larvae eat the salal twigs while many small mammals and deer eat the berries. • Evergreen huckleberry: This species provides habitat for a number of species found in this area. Many bird species eat the berries as do squirrels and deer. Bird species eating the berries include pigeons, robins, towhees and sparrows. The firm structure of the plant also provides good refuge and nesting habitat for birds. The flowers also attract butterflies and hummingbirds. This evergreen plant also provides some habitat functions year-round. Other species will also help meet native species planting and habitat restoration as specified in Table 3. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 32 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSION The project is to develop the property with a small single-family residence (1,500 square feet), a septic system (septic tanks near the residence, a septic line and drainfield), and additional septic drain-field for three nearby properties. A planned cul-de-sac to access this and an adjacent property will also be constructed. The consequent changes on the Property are expected to include a slight increase in the impervious footprint on-site. The project will cause the removal of some native vegetation and intrusion into the buffer by the new septic system drain-fields which will be within the wetland and stream buffers. The project will offset the need to construct drain-fields on one other nearby property (combined lot 7&8). These factors will result in the potential for increased erosion and stormwater runoff as well as a reduction in on-site habitat. The landowners (JSB Land Development) contracted with Westech Company to prepare a Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) to address development within the buffer zone of the nearby Category III wetlands (surrounding Crocker Lake) and reduction of stream buffers for Anders Creek. This CASP has been developed to reflect current conditions and the new proposed residence and septic systems. A Management Plan has been formulated in Chapter 3.0 to offset impacts associated with ground-disturbing activities and enhance the overall quality of the buffer zone. In addition to specific Mitigation and Enhancement Measures, that section also describes Performance Standards for assessing the success of the Management Plan, a Monitoring Plan for tracking success, and a Contingency Plan to implement adaptive management in the event that the Management Plan fails. The overall result of implementing this plan is to “maintain and enhance the existing functions and values of the associated watershed” (JCC 18.22.965). Rebuilding the connection between the upland forest and the aquatic shoreline with natural vegetation will improve existing erosion control and enhance the overall habitat for terrestrial species. 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS This Report constitutes a Critical Areas Stewardship Plan (CASP) based on the proposed Project. This report is intended as supporting documentation to allow mitigation on the Site to offset construction impacts of the new residence, well and septic system as specified under the guidelines of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code (JCC 18.22.965). WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 33 Westech recommends that all mitigation and planting requirements are followed. A Planting Plan has been included in this Report (Chapter 4.0) and we recommend that it be implemented on the Site upon approval by the County. To ensure that stormwater runoff does not increase erosion along the stream riparian area, a silt fence was specified to be emplaced around the construction areas based on runoff potential from the construction site to the stream and wetland. Other standard drainage and erosion control measures may be undertaken during planting in accordance with Jefferson County regulations. Such measures would include placement of straw bales or similar control devices at the downhill edge of any extensively disturbed areas and spreading straw or jute netting (or similar measures) over exposed soil areas. An “As-Built” Report should be completed and submitted to Jefferson County upon completion of planting activities. Monitoring Plans should be prepared at the end of each growing season for the five-year period required by Jefferson County. The Monitoring Plan guidelines should be followed, and the Contingency Plan implemented in the event that Performance Standards are not met. Monitoring should continue as described over a five-year period. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 34 6.0 REFERENCES Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine Riparian Vegetation Communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-02. Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Available at http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org. Brennan, J.S., Higgins, K.F., Cordell, J.R. and V.A. Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile Salmon Composition, Timing, Distribution, and Diet in Marine Nearshore Waters of Central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, Washington. Creative Design Solutions (CDS). 2022. Septic Design Plans for Snow Creek Ranch Lot 23 Project Site in Quilcene Washington. Port Angeles, Washington. Google Earth. 2022. Online mapping software. Imagery date 7/29/2021. www.googleearth.com Jefferson County. 2022a. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. 18.25 JCC. Department of Community Development Port Townsend, Washington. Jefferson County. 2022b. Online Map Database. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/. Jefferson County, Washington. Jefferson County. 2021. Jefferson County Critical Areas Code. Title 18.22 JCC. Department of Community Development. Port Townsend, Washington. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973 (updated 2014). Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Lyons, C.P. 1997. Wildflowers of Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, Washington. Mayer, P.M., Reynolds, S.K. and T.J. Canfield. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web-Soil Survey. http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 2014. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing Company. Redmond, Washington. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 35 Taylor, R. 1995. Northwest Weeds. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula Montana. Washington Native Plant Society (WNPS). 2011. http://www.wnps.org/. Wegner, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extend and Vegetation. Athens, Georgia: Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2022. Wetland Delineation: Snow Creek Ranch Lots 7, 8 and 23 – APN 995-40-0007, 0008, 0022, Quilcene, Jefferson County, Washington. Port Angeles, Washington. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.Rpt/050923/mas 36 APPENDICES WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.APPA/050923/mas A-1 APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.APPA/050923/mas A-2 1) Lot 23 looking west from the proposed home-site, across the drain-field. 2) Lot 23 looking northwest across the proposed drain-field area. WW1705-SnowCreekRanchLot23CASP.APPA/050923/mas A-3 3) Proposed Cul-de-Sac adjacent to Lots 23 and 24. 4) Lake View Drive looking south along proposed Cul-de-Sac and road extension.